DMCA Forces Cox To Censor Changelog?

Ross Vandegrift writes: "Alan Cox released 2.2.20pre10 today, which includes security fixes. He is refusing to indicate what security holes have been fixed, as Unix-style permissions could be used as an anti-circumvention device. The thread starts here. " It'd be great if people could read the threads here and try to figure out what is going on. I'm a little lost, but it looks like he's being overzealous.

Comments

Overzealous, eh?

[Satai]

Hey, remember that time Felten wrote a paper and couldn't release it cuz it was a circumvention device?

Or that time I wanted to play DVDs in Linux and couldn't because I needed a circumvention device?

Or when some Russian dude got locked up away from his family because he wanted to let blind people use eBooks?

Overzealous my ass. This is a problem and we need to take a stand, whether it's "reasonable" or not. People need to understand what is at stake - and what better way to help that process than by showing them?

Re:Overzealous, eh?

[dschuetz]

Of course, when he filed suit against the RIAA, the RIAA realized they were trapped and fell on their sword.

They didn't fall on their sword, they threw it out of the picture and said "What sword?"

Which is the most chilling of all chilling effects -- they get to delay publication of information they're not happy with, then when someone calls their bluff they change their story and say they have no objections, and (according to the DOJ's interpretation), therefore, no prior restraint actually happened and you can't sue to prevent it from happening again.

You know, mid-term elections are happening in almost exactly a year. We all know that voter turnout sucks, especially for off years. What're the chance of a Slashdot party (hell, we're even Green) forming and fielding some geek candidates in key areas? I know my district has had the Republican incumbent running essentially unopposed for years. And we're home to Worldcom, AOL, and many other geek-heavy companies. Hell, these geek companies together probably employ as many people as voted in the entire district in '98, anyway.

Hm. Maybe I should repost this elsewhere...

Re:Overzealous, eh?

[Spruitje]

Well I can play dvd's under linux, just not legally. What people don't realize is that people still find a way, it just forces them to take the effort unground and do it illegally. We'll see more and more of this kind of "illegal" activity with the DMCA around, I guarantee it. Only when the minority opinion becomes the majority will the DMCA be repealed. That's how politics works.


I can legally view DVD's on my Linux computer.
I can legally download DECCS.
I can legally buy a DVD player which is regioncode free.
The reason is very simple.
I live in the Netherlands and we don't have the DMCA.
Second, large corporations don't have as much influence on Dutch law as they do have in the US.
Second, contrary to the US we don't have a duocracy.
And third, we don't give a fuck about the US.

just making a point

[lophophore]

It seems to me that Alan is just trying to make a point about how ridiculous the DMCA is in this case by taking this relatively extreme position how the DMCA throws a wet blanket onto legitimate security discussions.

Re:Offtopic

[susano_otter]

Republicans tend to not like business that deal in porn, etc, things they find morally offensive (however you feel like defining that).

More generally, "Republicans" do not favor government interference in commerce, and do favor government interference in "moral" conduct. The Republican definition of "moral" seems to coincide with the Religious Right (which is also apparently a vocal subset of Republicans), and does not address most business/commercial practices unless they are also "immoral" for non-business-related religious reasons (e.g., porn).

Conversely, the "Democrat" viewpoint seems to be in favor of government interference in commerce, but against government interference in non-business-related moral issues.

As far as I can tell, "Libertarians" seem to be against government interference in any area. Of course, all of these groups tend to favor any government decision that furthers their more immediate goals, or hinders the immediate goals of the other parties. For the Libertarians, this results in an oddly self-referencing approach where one acceptable role of government is to prevent government interference.

This applies to the United States of (North) America, naturally. YMMV.

Just got back from the Post Office.

[Speare]

The SSSCA, which could become DMCA's darker sibling, has even more for Alan Cox to ponder. In fact, I just finished a weekend writing a fairly long letter to my representatives, and sent it only a few moments ago, so that it may get there in time for a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on the 25th.

The full letter is at http://www.halley.cc/ed/politics/2001-10-22.conten t.control.html. I welcome comments, and the letter may be reprinted with attribution.

libertarianism defined

[steveha]

As far as I can tell, "Libertarians" seem to be against government interference in any area. Of course, all of these groups tend to favor any government decision that furthers their more immediate goals, or hinders the immediate goals of the other parties. For the Libertarians, this results in an oddly self-referencing approach where one acceptable role of government is to prevent government interference.

I am a minarchist libertarian, and here is my attempt to briefly describe libertarianism.

First of all, the difference between "libertarian" and "Libertarian" is that the second one specifically means a member of the Libertarian Party, while the first one just means anyone who believes in libertarian ideas. Thus Thomas Jefferson could be called a libertarian, but he was not a Libertarian.

The defining principle that all libertarians must believe in (or else they are not really libertarians) is that people own themselves, and the product of their own labor. All else follows from that.

Because people own themselves, it is wrong for government to outlaw behavior that doesn't hurt anyone but the person doing it. Thus it is wrong for government to outlaw smoking, or outlaw eating fatty foods, or outlaw prostitution. (Government may have a legitimate role regulating prostitution, for example to require medical screening of prostitutes for public health reasons, but there is no moral basis for government to outlaw it.)

Because people own themselves, government should not prevent them from freely entering into contracts. Government can legitimately have a role in enforcing contracts. (The major areas where government is useful: national defense, enforcing the laws against violence and theft, and enforcing contracts.) Because of this, if Microsoft wants to require product activation, government shouldn't tell them they can't do that. It's up to people to vote with their dollars. (Note that it was not government that finally dethroned IBM from its monopoly position, it was the free market.)

So, no libertarian can be in favor of a law like the DMCA. The record companies could have annoying license agreements, and libertarians would not be in favor of using government to force the companies to not have them, but the kind of free speech infringement that the DMCA is all about would be right out. And of course no libertarian would be in favor of outlawing encryption.

P.S. In case you are wondering, a "minarchist" libertarian is in favor of a minimal government; an anarchist is in favor of no government. There are many libertarians who believe that we don't need a government at all; the free market can solve all problems. Minarchists like me think we do need a small government to handle things like national defense.

steveha